I know that there are probably weightier issues this election holding your attention, but please....take a good look at Issue One, especially the wording of Issue One before you make your decision.

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

To me, this amendment goes way way beyond the purposes of banning gay marriage. I will not make my personal opinions known, although it's probably obvious here, but I just hope that you end up deciding to vote against the issue. Thanks.

Originally posted by indra Hiya, pianorocker, yeah, I'm in Ohio and I most certainly am going to vote against this stupid, vicious, bigoted proposed law. To me it's an embarassment that it's even on the ballot.

Please can you tell me why you feel this way? I'm not on one side of the issue or the other totally--but you guys are opposed to the wording of the issue? Or the issue itself? Is this about civil unions?

I think if you read the wording you should understand why I'm against it. If you still do not understand my position, please read the now closed Spain Unveils Controversial Gay Marriage Law thread (currently on page 2 of this section). I'm not meaning to be rude or abrupt with you, but I don't feel like hashing through the reasons yet again so soon after the Spain thread.

The very short version (of my objection to this ballot initiative) is that I find the idea of denying a group of people very basic rights is wrong. Despite trying to make the wording appear not to target homosexuals, this initiative clearly does just that.

Originally posted by indra I think if you should understand why I'm against it. If you still do not understand my position, please read the now closed Spain Unveils Controversial Gay Marriage Law thread (currently on page 2 of this section). I'm not meaning to be rude or abrupt with you, but I don't feel like hashing through the reasons yet again so soon after the Spain thread.

The very short version (of my objection to this ballot initiative) is that I find the idea of denying a group of people very basic rights is wrong. Despite trying to make the wording appear not to target homosexuals, this initiative clearly does just that.

Your not being rude or abrupt--just looking for your opinion that's all. This is a tough issue for me and since I'm going to have to vote on it in a month or so I'm trying to decide which side to come down on. I can say that I am against a constitutional amemdment.

There is a similar initivative in Michigan that my mom said she will be voting for. I asked her why and she said she was just always raised to believe that being gay is wrong. Fine, so be it. I don't agree with my mom but if she wants to vote based on her religion, so be it.

If I had a choice like this, I would vote against it. funny enough -- it would also be because of my religion. I just think God wants us to love and respect one another. If it is wrong, it's not something for us to decide. We don't get to choose who goes to Heaven or not. God has never given us that power. But while we are here on earth, we should do our best as humans to act humanly toward one another.

Not to mention the so-called Marriage Tax would be able to generate more revenue when you open up a whole extra group of people who have to pay it.

Originally posted by drivemytrabant Hey Piano--I live in ohio--can you tell me exactly what you mean by going way beyond the purposes of banning gay marriage?

Sure! It's this phrase: This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
that I believe goes way beyond just defining marriage, or banning gay marriage. This phrase removes the possibility of civil unions, and/or domestic partnerships. However, as I mentioned before (I think...), this phrase also jeopardizes relationships or business interactions that may, in some way, approximate a marriage, such as jointly owning property. If someone wanted to contest two people's right to jointly own property, regardless of whether it's a romantic relationship, they could simply say that the interaction violated the amendment because it approximated a marriage.

I firmly believe that the passage of this amendment will greatly harm the potential for business growth in this state. I ask, Who would want to set up a company here with the risk of being dragged to court over something that approximates a marriage? Additionally, domestic partner benefits are becoming a more common perk for businesses, and those would definitely become illegal under this law...once again, a deterrent to business growth.

With that said, I guess I will tell you what I believe and I hope that it does not diminish my argument above. I believe that we all have the right to love the person that we choose, and the law should respect that. As in the words of the 14th Amendment:... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws I understand that marriage is not under federal jurisdiction. However, I believe that this amendment is also unconstitutional since it clearly violates the 14th Amendment. Equal protection of the laws mean equal protection no matter who you are.

Sure! It's this phrase: This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
that I believe goes way beyond just defining marriage, or banning gay marriage. This phrase removes the possibility of civil unions, and/or domestic partnerships. However, as I mentioned before (I think...), this phrase also jeopardizes relationships or business interactions that may, in some way, approximate a marriage, such as jointly owning property. If someone wanted to contest two people's right to jointly own property, regardless of whether it's a romantic relationship, they could simply say that the interaction violated the amendment because it approximated a marriage.

I firmly believe that the passage of this amendment will greatly harm the potential for business growth in this state. I ask, Who would want to set up a company here with the risk of being dragged to court over something that approximates a marriage? Additionally, domestic partner benefits are becoming a more common perk for businesses, and those would definitely become illegal under this law...once again, a deterrent to business growth.

With that said, I guess I will tell you what I believe and I hope that it does not diminish my argument above. I believe that we all have the right to love the person that we choose, and the law should respect that. As in the words of the 14th Amendment:... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws I understand that marriage is not under federal jurisdiction. However, I believe that this amendment is also unconstitutional since it clearly violates the 14th Amendment. Equal protection of the laws mean equal protection no matter who you are.

Thanks for the clarification Piano. I had thought about the civil unions argument but not the business one.

Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way

Posts: 2,432

Local Time: 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sharky If I had a choice like this, I would vote against it. funny enough -- it would also be because of my religion. I just think God wants us to love and respect one another. If it is wrong, it's not something for us to decide. We don't get to choose who goes to Heaven or not. God has never given us that power. But while we are here on earth, we should do our best as humans to act humanly toward one another.

Originally posted by pianorocker I firmly believe that the passage of this amendment will greatly harm the potential for business growth in this state. I ask, Who would want to set up a company here with the risk of being dragged to court over something that approximates a marriage? Additionally, domestic partner benefits are becoming a more common perk for businesses, and those would definitely become illegal under this law...once again, a deterrent to business growth.

Based on the quoted wording, only the government would be unable to recognize domestic partnerships. Business would still be able to provide benefit programs to domestic partners, including same-sex domestic partnerships.